Why why?
Why not why? You say Buddhism needs to address origins. Maybe Buddhism is just being honest and not knowing everything instead of applying a bad myth like other religions do so they can be more 'complete', even if it's nonsense. Kinda like putting Monopoly money in your safe, just to say there is money in there, even if it's not really true.
This is a scientific knowledge. Are we talking about some which is much bigger than science? Or are you saying the Buddhism is limited by science?
My point was that Buddhism provides meaning to the lives of millions of people without needing a Creator God.
Didn't say it didn't. Was replying to the other chap who feels that if a religion or philosphy doesn't include an 'origin' story, no matter how silly, then is somehow flawed.
I don't see why that's a problem The origin of human beings is Nature, just like the rest of the biosphere.Exactly. The ultimate problem is the origin of human.
I'm not understanding why "origin" is such a big problem for you.Is Buddhism a theology? Or a philosophy?
Either case, it NEEDs to address the origin problem.
Why not why? You say Buddhism needs to address origins. Maybe Buddhism is just being honest and not knowing everything instead of applying a bad myth like other religions do so they can be more 'complete', even if it's nonsense. Kinda like putting Monopoly money in your safe, just to say there is money in there, even if it's not really true.
Buddhism is based on Siddhartha Gautama's experience of reality as it is. What need is there of a Creator God if matter can't be created or destroyed?
It's really obvious to me that the Big Bang was one of an infinite chain of Big Bangs.
I don't see why that's a problem The origin of human beings is Nature, just like the rest of the biosphere.
I'm not understanding why "origin" is such a big problem for you.
I don't believe that Buddhism talks about an end. They learn to experience the "now".Not only to me, but to any one who likes to see the whole picture from the beginning to the end. Only give a recycling circle is not good enough.
In Buddhism, the cyclic process is only a part of it. It does have a process which leads one to get into and to get out of the cycle. So, there should be a beginning and an end. The religion can not just address the end, without say something about the beginning.
I was looking more at life itSelf and not so much the process. People aren't separate from Nature. We are one and whole with it. We came from it, live and die in it.Do you mean evolution?
If you do, then does monkeys have any thought about the origin problem?
I don't believe that Buddhism talks about an end. They learn to experience the "now".
Yes, people "like" to see a bigger picture. I agree. That's mental conceptional stuff. But for anything spiritual, we don't "need" to see the whole picture. Which is what I understand you saying.
I was looking more at life itSelf and not so much the process. People aren't separate from Nature. We are one and whole with it. We came from it, live in it.
I don't see how it's not complete, or that it's not good. Science provides those answers to the question your posing. Buddhism is not about doctrines.You are right. Many (you, as one) do not need to see the whole picture of a doctrine. That is why there are many Buddhists. My argument here is such a religion is not complete and thus is not good.
Who cares...Only the monkey mind as it bounces around hither and yonder trying to find ways to figure these things out.A scientific thought would be: since the human population increases through time, so there must be more animals reincarnated to human than the opposite way. If so, what does the situation mean?